Today, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) opened up registration for the FANG Challenges, a set of three next-generation military vehicle design competitions that will kick off in January, and will put tools based on approaches borrowed from software development and chip design in the hands of teams of engineers and designers. In an effort to reinvent how such complex systems are designed and built, DARPA is preparing for the first real test of its efforts to use open-source software and Web collaboration—with millions of dollars in prize money at stake.

The challenges are the first major milestone in a program that seeks to break the Department of Defense out of the decade-long process that has cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars to produce aircraft, vehicles, and weapons systems that often end up never being built. DARPA's Adaptive Vehicle Make project has funded the development of a set of open-source design tools that allow engineers to use "correct-by-construction" approaches to designing complex systems, using the known characteristics of building-block components from a shared model library to validate a design before it is ever assembled.

Because of the complexity of military systems—or practically any large-scale system—using computer modeling to determine the best possible design from all possible configurations would take "decades of compute time," DARPA AVM Program Manager Army Lt. Col. Nathan Wiedenman said in a press briefing today. But by using the known operating ranges of previously validated components and correct-by-construction techniques, designers can quickly reduce the order of magnitude of the problem, making it easier to verify the overall design.

Enlarge/ A collaborative space within VehicleForge, where engineers can lay out and examine building block components and wire them together into a vehicle design.

DARPA

The tools have been integrated into VehicleForge, a Web portal modeled on collaborative software development portals such as SourceForge and GitHub that allows groups of engineers to work together to check in on models and work concurrently on designs. VehicleForge and the FANG design competitions will be open to any US citizen who wishes to participate.

This way, said Wiedenman, the first build of a system "isn't a prototype, it's a production model." And by using the VehicleForge portal to open up the process to a more community-driven approach, Weideman said, DARPA hopes to tap into a broader set of expertise and break out of the locked-in design approaches that have resulted in the spiraling cost of programs like the F-35 fighter, the Joint Tactical Radio System and the Army's ill-fated Future Combat System. Wiedenman said that using a system like VehicleForge for defense systems could shrink the development process down from the current average of 10 years down to as little as two years, saving billions of dollars in the process.

Each of the FANG Challenges is focused on a step in the design and manufacturing of the Fast, Adaptable, Next-Generation Ground Vehicle—an amphibious assault vehicle that meets the requirements of the Marine Corps' long-delayed Amphibious Combat Vehicle program. The winning designs for each step will be manufactured using another part of the AVM program, the IFAB "factory of the future" project —an automated, reconfigurable manufacturing plant that uses computer-numerically-controlled machine tools, 3D-printing and related technologies to turn designs produced through VehicleForge into a final product.

The first challenge, which has a $1 million prize, will be to design FANG's drive train and control systems. The winner of the challenge will be selected based on an evaluation of the design's compliance with the Marine Corps' requirement set, Weideman said. The second challenge, which also carries a $1 million prize, will focus on the chassis and other systems of the vehicle; the final, $2 million challenge, will be for a full build of the vehicle, which DARPA hopes to deliver to the Marine Corps.

I wonder if the Lockheed Martin's etc of the defense industrial complex are worried, and if we'll be able to see them opposing this in some way? Or will they embrace it? It seems like it would be good for them (in house), but I'm suspecting a knee-jerk reaction.

I probably don't know as much as I think about how the typical process works - this would allow the government to section/divide up a project right? And currently they do/try to give the entire project to the lowest bidder, understanding that that company will section it up and subcontract it, and still be responsible for the final project?

I wonder if the Lockheed Martin's etc of the defense industrial complex are worried, and if we'll be able to see them opposing this in some way? Or will they embrace it? It seems like it would be good for them (in house), but I'm suspecting a knee-jerk reaction.

I probably don't know as much as I think about how the typical process works - this would allow the government to section/divide up a project right? And currently they do/try to give the entire project to the lowest bidder, understanding that that company will section it up and subcontract it, and still be responsible for the final project?

The main thing that drives the length and cost of development right now is the iterative design and testing approach. Pieces are contracted out and tested individually, then assembled and tested as a whole only to find that one part affects another in an unexpected way. The VehicleForge approach is supposed to largely eliminate those sorts of problems by doing heavy modeling of "validated" components up-front, allowing for the creation of new parts (which then have to be modeled and validated using rapid prototyping), and verifying the entire design before it is even assembled for the first time. The modeling is supposed to take into account aspects of heat signature, electromagnetic emissions, etc., and make sure that all the components are both compatible and meet performance requirements before they are then heavily simulated.

Basically, VehicleForge looks a bit like what GM did when it started to digitize the design process a decade ago, but it adds collaboration and the "correct-by-construction" filter to the design process to allow the expansion of the talent pool. Theoretically, in the future, the government could put out an RFP for a system as a set of elastic performance parameters, have teams submit designs through something like VehicleForge, and pick a winner--which, with IFAB, could be quickly manufactured for final acceptance and deployment. It could crush the development process down from 10 years to two years.

I wonder if the Lockheed Martin's etc of the defense industrial complex are worried, and if we'll be able to see them opposing this in some way? Or will they embrace it? It seems like it would be good for them (in house), but I'm suspecting a knee-jerk reaction.

Even with low cost, open sourced design I don't think the Lockheed Martins of the world need to worry. Low cost prototyping does not prevent high cost manufacturing. Burt Rutan's work for DARPA designing and building 1 prototype and 2 testbed UAV's that would become the Predator cost under $1M, while General Atomics charges $4M each today. So design work and 3 flying drones cost $300,000 each from a small advanced research shop, but the large defense contractor wins the bid at 13x the unit cost.

I wonder if the Lockheed Martin's etc of the defense industrial complex are worried, and if we'll be able to see them opposing this in some way? Or will they embrace it? It seems like it would be good for them (in house), but I'm suspecting a knee-jerk reaction.

I probably don't know as much as I think about how the typical process works - this would allow the government to section/divide up a project right? And currently they do/try to give the entire project to the lowest bidder, understanding that that company will section it up and subcontract it, and still be responsible for the final project?

The main thing that drives the length and cost of development right now is the iterative design and testing approach. Pieces are contracted out and tested individually, then assembled and tested as a whole only to find that one part affects another in an unexpected way....

I don't know about non-aerospace efforts, but the largest driver in the length and development cost of aircraft for the DoD has been "requirements creep". The customer can't resist the temptation to add features and change specs in the middle of the design and development process. Anyone who's done product development knows the inevitable result.

I'm not quite sure how this DARPA effort resolves that issue, if it even attempts to do so at all.

I wonder if the Lockheed Martin's etc of the defense industrial complex are worried, and if we'll be able to see them opposing this in some way? Or will they embrace it? It seems like it would be good for them (in house), but I'm suspecting a knee-jerk reaction.

I probably don't know as much as I think about how the typical process works - this would allow the government to section/divide up a project right? And currently they do/try to give the entire project to the lowest bidder, understanding that that company will section it up and subcontract it, and still be responsible for the final project?

The main thing that drives the length and cost of development right now is the iterative design and testing approach. Pieces are contracted out and tested individually, then assembled and tested as a whole only to find that one part affects another in an unexpected way....

I don't know about non-aerospace efforts, but the largest driver in the length and development cost of aircraft for the DoD has been "requirements creep". The customer can't resist the temptation to add features and change specs in the middle of the design and development process. Anyone who's done product development knows the inevitable result.

I'm not quite sure how this DARPA effort resolves that issue, if it even attempts to do so at all.

I think DARPA is given more free-reign than that. More like a "we have a problem, you guys mull it over and think of something".

But, what you say about military contracts in general is true. I got to watch NMCI first-hand. Also, the story about the how the Bradley Fighting Vehicle went through iteration after iteration, all to the waste of tax payer money, tends to piss folks off to no extent. Invention of the M16 to replace the M1 rifle... I'm sure there's others I left out.

I think the military has gotten better these days, though. They seem to have learned from their top-down mistakes from the past, and tend to give the folks that will actually use the equipment more say and feedback in new gear. Of course, with that they also tend to use it as an excuse to reinvent wheels every 5 years to justify their budgets.

AVW+G (All Very Well and Good)But to what end? Seeing as how the United States of America hasn't fought a real war since World War Two...Nor has the Unites States "won" any of its' protracted "Police Actions" or "Locally Confined Conflicts" or purported "War (Continuing) on Drugs" or for that matter *ANY* military action in the past fifty years...So why does DARPA insist on complicating a losing proposition? More and better software will not improve a bigger computer in the hands of an idiot and the Government is an idiot if there ever was one.

Seeing as how the United States of America hasn't fought a real war since World War Two...Nor has the Unites States "won" any of its' protracted "Police Actions" or "Locally Confined Conflicts" or purported "War (Continuing) on Drugs" or for that matter *ANY* military action in the past fifty years...

You forgot "Extended Military Engagement" and "Enforcing Ceasefire". Anything to prevent calling it war so Congress doesn't need to get involved.

Seeing as how the United States of America hasn't fought a real war since World War Two...Nor has the Unites States "won" any of its' protracted "Police Actions" or "Locally Confined Conflicts" or purported "War (Continuing) on Drugs" or for that matter *ANY* military action in the past fifty years...

You forgot "Extended Military Engagement" and "Enforcing Ceasefire". Anything to prevent calling it war so Congress doesn't need to get involved.

I wonder if this can lead up to some kind of gamified design process. A serious KSP if you will. In the end one might be able to use some advanced genetic algorithm to design and test new vehicles and gear.